| phenomenon | behavioural priming by stereotype and trait activation— “Specifically, 4 experiments established that priming the stereotype of professors or the trait intelligent enhanced participants' performance on a scale measuring general knowledge.” |
| claim-type | existence— “The authors tested and confirmed the hypothesis that priming a stereotype or trait leads to complex overt behavior in line with this activated stereotype or trait.” |
| method — evidence | — “In the experiments, we investigated the impact of stereotype priming on overt behavior.” |
| transfer | from a commercial general-knowledge board game: the 42-item general knowledge instrument taken wholesale from Trivial Pursuit (1984/1987) and used as the dependent measure for primed intelligent behaviour— “The general knowledge task consisted of a questionnaire with 42 difficult multiple-choice questions borrowed from the game Trivial Pursuit (1984/1987).” | transfers[0] |
| builds-on | Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1996)— “In a series of studies, Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1996) demonstrated such unconscious and unintentional effects of perception on social behavior.” | claim_relations[0] |
| replicates | Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1996)— “With these results, the findings of Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1996) were replicated using a different priming procedure, different stereotypes, and a different dependent measure.” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | A DOSE-RESPONSE ON PRIME DURATION, MEASURED ON BEHAVIOUR: `the magnitude of the behavioral effects simply mirrored the magnitude of the perceptual input. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants who were primed for 9 min showed stronger behavioral effects than participants who were primed for 2 min.` Nine minutes against two, read off general-knowledge performance. srull-wyer1979 doses by FREQUENCY of activation and measures a judgement; this doses by DURATION and measures what someone does - and the two papers are 19 years and one dependent-variable class apart— “we demonstrated that the magnitude of the behavioral effects simply mirrored the magnitude of the perceptual input. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants who were primed for 9 min showed stronger behavioral effects than participants who were primed for 2 min. In other words, longer priming led to greater behavioral changes” | senses[0] |
| sense | AND THE INFERENCE DRAWN FROM THE DOSE IS THE STEP WORTH RECORDING SEPARATELY: `These results underscore the fact that the process under consideration can be characterized as rather PASSIVE.` Dose-dependence is taken as evidence of passivity - if the effect size simply tracks the amount of input, then no decision, strategy or correction is intervening to modulate it. That is a real argument and not an obvious one, and it is a different kind of claim from the measurement it rests on: the dose-response was measured, the passivity is inferred from its linearity— “These results underscore the fact that the process under consideration can be characterized as rather passive (cf. Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996). Also, these results parallel findings from experiments in which the relation between perception and judgment is investigated” | senses[1] |
| sense | A CONCEPTUAL REPLICATION WITH EVERYTHING CHANGED AT ONCE: `the findings of Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1996) were replicated using a different priming procedure, different stereotypes, and a different dependent measure.` Three things varied simultaneously. That buys generality and spends diagnosticity - a FAILURE would not have said which of the three was responsible, and a success cannot say which mattered. In a corpus that holds several papers on when priming effects replicate, the shape of a replication is worth recording as plainly as its outcome— “the findings of Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1996) were replicated using a different priming procedure, different stereotypes, and a different dependent measure” | senses[2] |
| sense | AND THE PAPER PLACES ITSELF IN THE ACCESSIBILITY LINEAGE EXPLICITLY: `these results parallel findings from experiments in which the relation between perception and JUDGMENT is investigated (e.g., Higgins et al., 1985; Srull & Wyer, 1979, 1980).` Both of those are in this corpus - higgins1977 and srull-wyer1979, tagged earlier tonight. The claimed step is from judgement to BEHAVIOUR while keeping the same mechanism, so the 1977-79 accessibility work is not merely cited but load-bearing: if accessibility does not drive judgement, this paper has no base to extend from— “these results parallel findings from experiments in which the relation between perception and judgment is investigated (e.g., Higgins et al., 1985; Srull & Wyer, 1979, 1980)” | senses[3] |
| control | three conditions - professor prime, secretary prime and NO prime - so that the secretary prime serves as a content control and the no-prime condition as a baseline — held — rules out that any prime produces the effect, and that the effect is not simply a change from baseline— “Sixty undergraduate students of the University of Nijmegen were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: a professor prime condition, a secretary prime (control) condition, or a no-prime control condition.” | controls[0] |
| effect direction | stereotype —causes→ behavior — increases— “The activation of a mental representation of a social group (e.g., professors) leads to behavior corresponding with specific attributes of the stereotype”— “leads to behavior” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | stereotype —causes→ behavior — THE PAPER'S CENTRAL CLAIM, and 'corresponding with specific attributes' is the part that matters and is in the quote: the effect is not general arousal or mood but takes the CONTENT of the stereotype - professors improve general knowledge, hooligans reduce it. Weight 0.9: this is the discussion's opening summary of four experiments.— “The activation of a mental representation of a social group (e.g., professors) leads to behavior corresponding with specific attributes of the stereotype” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | stereotype —causes→ behavior — 0.9— “The activation of a mental representation of a social group (e.g., professors) leads to behavior corresponding with specific attributes of the stereotype” | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | perception —causes→ behavior — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the claim is how 'the authors explain their results'; attributed.— “The authors explain their results by claiming that perception has a direct and pervasive impact on overt behavior” | concept_edges[1] |
| effect direction | perception —causes→ behavior — increases— “The authors explain their results by claiming that perception has a direct and pervasive impact on overt behavior”— “The authors explain their results by claiming that perception has a direct” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | perception —causes→ behavior — 'THE AUTHORS EXPLAIN…' IS THE HEDGE AND IT IS THE FIRST CLAUSE OF THE QUOTE. This is the paper's interpretation of its own four experiments, not a measured quantity - the measured thing is the duration dose-response (first sense), and 'direct and pervasive' is what the authors conclude from it. Weight 0.85 for that gap.— “The authors explain their results by claiming that perception has a direct and pervasive impact on overt behavior” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | perception —causes→ behavior — 0.85— “The authors explain their results by claiming that perception has a direct and pervasive impact on overt behavior” | concept_edges[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| replication | untested |
| limitation | The explanatory model of how a primed trait produces specific performance-improving behaviours is crude and unrefined— “It must be granted that the model explaining these results is still a rather crude one, and it needs to be refined in further research.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Alternative explanations of the findings cannot be ruled out with the data collected— “Also, there may be alternative explanations that cannot be rejected on the basis of the current data.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The post hoc account of why secretary-primed participants worked faster was not testable, because the relevant stereotype attributes were never pilot-tested— “However, because we did not test these possible attributes of the stereotype of secretaries in our pilot study, the validity of this post hoc explanation can not be verified with the current data.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The candidate mediating behaviours (concentration, strategy use, feeling of knowing) are speculative and were not measured— “This short list of potentially invoked behaviors is a tentative one; their causal role might be examined in further study in combination with a search for other potentially intervening behavioral mechanisms.” | limitations[3] |